Main menu

You are here

Ohio prison system wants meal service privatized

The Ohio prisons system wants to privatize its food service operations in a move that could save $15 million and result in more than 300 lost jobs.

Associated Press

Columbus

Feb 8, 2013

The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction says it remains committed to balancing its budget without reducing bed space or closing any more prisons.

Prisons spokeswoman JoEllen Smith said Thursday that savings would come through staffing, meal and equipment costs, with the possible reduction of 380 jobs.

Smith says 56 of the 380 employees have already found other jobs within the agency and the state hopes to help more find positions.

Unions representing guards at the adult and youth prison system, which is also considering a privatized food service, promise to fight the proposal, calling it unfair and unsafe.

Comments

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 7:11am

Just look at the article about the Hensley woman . Security is a huge concern .

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 7:23am

Yea, there's never any corruption connected with taxpayer funded public employees is there?

Privatization allows for better cost control.

Hemsley? We haven't gotten the whole story. Coercion?

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 7:36am

Coercion ? Now you're stretching it . There will always be corrupt employees , but we don't have to make it easier for them . How much money are they really going to save if all they do is relocate the existing employees ? And , besides our taxes are still paying the private contractor to do the job , so really how much better is the savings compared to less security ?

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 7:51am

The point: You're ASSUMING that public employees are more trustworthy than private. Nice fallacy.

Private ees. are easier to fire.

Unionized public employees health and welfare benefits are guaranteed by state taxpayers, private are not.

Lotsa pluses.

Hemsley is either the dumbest person in the world (How could she expect not to get caught?) or there are extenuating circumstances. At this point without all the facts, I tend towards the latter.

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 7:53am

You also have to consider that the existing employees more then likely pay more taxes on their wages then what a private contractor would take out since they are probably paying their employees less , so there is a loss on fed. and state taxes paid in . If they really crunched the numbers , I hope they took that into consideration too .

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:02am

Reduction in wages? Again more assuming.

You also are assuming that more pay = better employees. It ain't necessarily so.

IMO, until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a job can be performed better by a public ee. I say - privatize.

"Let govt. do it" is a knee-jerk, dumbed-down mental reaction for many and it's bankrupting this country.

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:04am

If most of them just get moved to another job in the system then they more then likely won't lose those benefits . So , the cost is just offset to another department . Sounds like the old shell game to me . See the savings here . When the cost was just moved over there. Slight of the accountant's hand ; )

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:10am

Move to other positions? Reads like the public unions got taxpayers by the cojones doesn't it?

Better check out my ol' stomping ground of IL. The public employees along with their Dem allies are bankrupting the state.

The governor wants to raise the min. wage to $10/hr. That must mean better employees! :)

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:22am

Kinda sounds like congress doesn't it . guaranteed health and pensions for life , to do absolutely nothing . Is it so wrong for regular working people to have some job security? Minimum wage to 10/hr. also means more tax revenue coming in . A good move . If you can't unionize , raise the minimum wage .

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:51am

A member of congress does not get "guarenteed health and pensions for life"

Ok , not guarenteed but still way better then most . The point was that their benefits and wages come from taxpayers just like other government employees . Their deal is still sweeter then the unionized portion of government employees.

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:04am

Bluto writes:

"Minimum wage to 10/hr. also means more tax revenue coming in . A good move."

Better familiarize yourself with the economic concept of the wage-price spiral.

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:38am

I meant a good move on the governments part . What is good for them sometimes comes at a cost to us . Even in the wage-price spiral theory ,the government still gets it's revenue , either from wages or sales tax on goods . At least until the economy reaches a tipping point .

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:46am

The govt. gets it's revenue? Ain't working too well in Greece right now.

You're well-read, certainly you've seen the quote (the author of which escapes me) "God created economists to make weather men look good."

Contango

Sun, 02/10/2013 - 9:47am

@ wetsu:

Thanks for the quote.

I prefer Bob Zimmerman: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

And likewise with economists. I take NONE at face value.

BTW: Venezuela devalued their currency by 1/3.

In our hubris we like to think that we're smarter than the "fools" that went before us.

Some say that a major issue in the 1930s was lack of liquidity, so Bernanke along with most central bankers are providing the opposite as a "cure." Let's hope he's right. :)

wetsu

Sun, 02/10/2013 - 1:33pm

That Zimmerman boy once described this whole situation pretty well when he said "Everything is broken."

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:12am

No , More pay doesn't mean better employees . Corruption , like I said before will always be a factor no matter who is running the show . My point is that , creative accounting can make it seem like savings when it actually is not . I have seen it done before . I believe you have heard the term cooking the books . Looks good to the public as long as you don't follow the money too closely . Without full disclosure all we are left with are assumptions anyway . This may require further investigation .

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:21am

As a budgeted line item, cost controls are easier - privatize.

If the private contractor ain't doin' the job - fire 'em.

Trying to fire a public ee. is a pain in the culo.

Agreed - further investigation.

Bluto

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:27am

I agree that getting rid of union employees that don't do their jobs , can be difficult . No one should be able to stay in a job if they aren't up to the task , but just because some abuse it doesn't make the whole system bad . Just the abusers .

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:01am

Study Deming - it's ALWAYS the system.

Corruption in govt. is easier to hide - accounting shell games.

arnmcrmn

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:39am

Just one more example of public jobs going private and saving the tax payers a ton of money.

Bottom line, the government can never do it as good.

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 8:54am

Well at least Erie County is already privatized seeing that the employee that got busted worked for Aramark and not the county, right?

I see nothing wrong with going private in this case as long as it saves money. Some times privatizing can cost more as the company keeps trying to get more and more profit.

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:09am

The profit-loss motive tends toward efficiency and productivity.

If the contractor is doin' a lousy job or costing too much - fire 'em and/or put it out for bid.

I think that private organizations are important but it is by no means a cure all.

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:28am

Didn't write that it was.

But IMO, free market solutions and methods should be researched FIRST instead of the current, "let govt. do it" knee-jerk reaction.

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:29am

you implied it by bring up grocery stores

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:33am

Please note that it was a question and "implied" nothing.

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:49am

Well I stand corrected....sure seemed implied

Contango

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:17am

With that link, one could "imply" that you were arguing that public was more cost efficient than private the vast majority of the time.

I was 'merely' following your lead. So would you care to answer it or play a game of semantics?

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:47am

I think that if the government ran it as a business it COULD be run just as efficiently if done probably. Would I Want that to happen? Not a bit.

Contango

Sat, 02/09/2013 - 9:24am

The Soviets had a command and control economy (even ran retail stores) that ultimately collapsed due to waste, fraud and abuse.

Needless-to-say, the Progressives in this county think that they are smarter than those dumb ol' Russians - they ain't.

The Bizness

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 9:29am

1

jon491

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:43am

A BACKHOE would solve everything.

Roger15

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:46am

Watch out for ANY privatization scheme! CCA (Corrections Corp of America) last year offered 48 States the opportunity to save money by letting them(CCA)handle the prison system, with appropriate guarantees of "occupancy rates"

Hmmm

arnmcrmn

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:01am

Name one thing the government runs that isn't is big trouble. I wont hold my breath.